Posts from UNIT - Creature Balance + Visual Changes Auto-translated

Am I right in understanding that the reason for the nerf is a staged 1-on-1 battle against a stack of dwarven dragons? What other tests were conducted, how many stacks were present on the battlefield, and were the battles played manually for both sides? Was a vote conducted, and does the community find the new "Arabs" appealing after the damage nerf? After all, there is also a subjective factor; what difference does it make how the unit is balanced if no one will use it.

Unless, before that moment, they are blocked, running out from a corner. Much lower damage and too many "ifs," compared to the alternative.

Heh, I thought the crossbowmen had enhanced arrows, but it turns out it's maneuvering! :D Shame on my nearsighted eyes!
I have to agree with comrade Nargott; given their fragility (even considering the increased health), crossbowmen are barely able to survive an enemy attack, let alone respond to it.

Tests were conducted not only against dragons; any high-level creatures against crossbowmen turned into mush because crossbowmen shoot completely ignoring defense, and now they do it across half the battlefield. Tier 6-7 units survive only due to a large amount of armor and increased health, which compensates for their modest weekly growth. Now imagine that 6-7 creatures, say, blood-eyed cyclops (3-4 weekly growth), are killed by a hundred crossbowmen with a single shot, and with a large margin of excess damage. This means that if a creature has a speed of less than 7-8 tiles, it is doomed... But with low-level creatures, the picture is different; they survive mainly due to their quantity in a stack, health, and a little armor, so crossbowmen will not be such a "deadly option" against them, even with increased damage.

I can't disagree with this; there are too many assumptions - that's a fact. So far, I haven't found a compromise in this situation, but I am constantly working on improving the balance and testing new "ability-characteristic" combinations. As I said, crossbowmen are a very situational unit, and they gain a significant advantage with the right approach. Correcting the crossbowmen is not yet the final version; I understood that they would still need to be reworked, but for now, they need to be "tested" to fully understand all their strengths and weaknesses, and I hope that those who use my mods will help me with this in order to further bring them to a new, balanced level.

So, I understand correctly that all tests are 1 stack against 1 stack, which simply attacks instead of just blocking, leading to a stalemate ("draw")? (resulting in a draw against top-tier units, and a loss against lower-tier units).

Half the field is 6 cells, not 4. Why is the speed 7-8 needed there if, even with normal terrain and a speed of 3, you can block naked Arabs, bypassing armor penetration.

At least for starters, there is no need to reduce the damage, otherwise there is no point in trying them out. A crossbowman buff should look like a buff.

We are talking about the raw damage of a creature, not its tactical survivability under all possible combat conditions, so the tests were conducted in a similar way with creatures of different levels.

Half the field is a relative term; in any case, it is practically half for archers, because they occupy 1 cell + have a range of 4, which is 5 in total. And how can you bypass armor-piercing? And if you are so concerned about all tactical aspects, then say, what is the new tactic of leaving archers unprotected?

I wanted to reduce the damage as little as possible, but with the current unit configuration, there was no other way.

and also, the enhanced arrow works in melee combat

Is this for sure? It smells like a bug, both from a technical point of view and from the point of view of elementary logic.

PS: someone picked up on my crazy idea – about using arbalests for ranged attacks; I hasten to disappoint – any application of it by anyone other than archers leads to the game crashing.

In my humble opinion, crossbowmen (marksmen) were and remain a practically "forgotten" creature, and this started even before the introduction of alternative upgrades; I know many cases where a higher maximum damage was sacrificed in favor of higher initiative and the ability to shoot over obstacles, which archers possess.
Solution: give crossbowmen either a double shot or the ability to shoot over obstacles, but only if the squad has at least a weekly increase in creatures, in order to maintain basic logic.

No, it works on other creatures. However, it conflicts with some abilities.

Could you please be more specific – which abilities does it conflict with?

Could you please be more specific – which abilities does it conflict with?

And another question: Nargott, what is this setup – I don't quite understand.
==X+
++||+
++||+
++V+
+++A

No, it works on other creatures.

Absolutely, but you can benefit from this bug if you name the ability correctly (enhanced attack or armor penetration) and give it to melee units as well, setting the knockback trigger factor to 0 (disabling knockback).

Crystal dragons received a fairly powerful AoE, their native ability "Crystal Breath" + the new "Storm Strike."

Why were all these unnecessary adjustments made around the dragons? They could have replaced the corrosive breath of the Bronze dragons with a storm strike (which would have been in line with the lore) with a slight stat adjustment, and players would have had an interesting dilemma. But as it is, it's just a mess.